You may want to take a chance on this new Out-of-Towners because of its stars, but keep in mind that while its characters take chances, the picture itself plays it awfully safe. [2 April 1999, Calendar, p.F-12]Read Full Review »
50
USA Today: Susan Wloszczyna
The only possible reasons to do this concept again is sheer laziness (it's easier to borrow an idea) and pure greed (it's cheaper to borrow an idea). [2 April 1999, Life, p.6E]Read Full Review »
42
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Alice King
Don't hate yourself for chuckling at this sweetly anachronistic update of the 1970 Neil Simon comedy.Read Full Review »
38
ReelViews: James Berardinelli
Unremarkable. A more honest description would be to label it as mirthless, pointless, and banal.Read Full Review »
38
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: Roger Ebert
Jogs doggedly on the treadmill of comedy, working up a sweat but not getting much of anywhere.Read Full Review »
30
The New York Times: Lawrence Van Gelder
Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin are appealing performers, but none of the energy, professionalism and gameness they display -- can surmount the mess that surrounds them in this misguided comedy.Read Full Review »
30
Salon.com: Stephanie Zacharek
A dismally unfunny comedy, but that's not what's depressing about it. Worse by far is the palpable desperation in Goldie Hawn's performance.Read Full Review »
20
Washington Post: Stephen Hunter
The film has about seven minutes of good material, mostly provided by John Cleese.Read Full Review »
20
Washington Post: Michael O'Sullivan
There was absolutely no reason to make a new version of the 1970 comedy.Read Full Review »
Hotmail
